Case 3:12-cv-02220-IEG-MDD Document Page€¦ · Case 3:12-cv-02220-IEG-MDD Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 5 of 12 1 the Device. Such high levels ofchromium and cobalt are indicative

Case 3:12-cv-02220-IEG-MDD Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 12

1 Jeffrey A. Milman, Esq., SBN 99072Jessica L. Vanden Brink, Esq., SBN 260548

2 HODES MILMAN LIEBECK, LLP9210 Irvine Center Drive3 Irvine, California 92618

4 T: c)49) 640-8222F: 949) 336-8114

5 imi [email protected]@hml-lawyers.com

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,78 1WILLIAM REILLY and JILL REILLY

9 I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA11

12WILLIAM REILLY and JILL REILLY, Case No. '12CV2220 IEG MDD

13Asszgnedfor allpurposes to:

Plaintiffs,14 JudgeDept.

15 vs.

16 COMPLAINT FOR:

17, NEGLIGENCE,2 BREACH OF EXPRESS

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. and DOES 1 WARRANTY,18through 100inclusive, (3) BREACH OF IMPLIED

WARRANTIES,19 STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY,20 Defendants. 5 FALSE REPRESENTATION, and

6 LOSS OF CONSORTRJM21 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED22

Complaint Filed:23 Trial date: N/A24

25

26Plaintiffs WILLIAM REILLY and JILL REILLY ("Plaintiffs"), allege on

27information and belief against S1VIITH & NEPHEW, INC. and DOES 1 through 100,

28inclusive, ("Defendants"), the following:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND JURY DEMAND


1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE

2 1. Plaintiffs William Reilly and Jill Reilly, who were and are married at all

3 relevant times herein, are citizens of the State of California and reside in Vista, California.

4 2. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or

5 otherwise, of Defendants SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. ("Smith & Nephew), and DOES 1

6 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by7 said fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each of

8 said Defendants is negligently or otherwise responsible in some manner for the events and

9 happenings herein referred to, and negligently or otherwise caused injuries and damages10 proximately thereby to the Plaintiffs as herein alleged. Plaintiffs will amend this

11 Complaint and insert the correct names and capacities of those Defendants when they are

12 discovered.

13 3. Plaintiffs are uncertain as to the true names and status of Smith & Nephew,14 or whether said Defendants are corporations, general partnerships, limited partnerships,15 unincorporated associations, or otherwise. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon

16 allege, that said Defendants are duly licensed to do business, and were and are doing17 business, under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, and in the Southern

18 District of California. When the true status of said Defendants is ascertained, Plaintiffs

19 pray leave of this court to amend this complaint accordingly.20 4. At all times mentioned, each of the Defendants-including DOES 1 through21 100-was the representative, agent, employee, joint venturer, or alter ego of each of the

22 other defendants and in doing the things alleged herein was acting within the scope of its

23 authority as such.

24 5. Smith & Nephew and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are collectively25 referred to herein as "Defendants."

26 6. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, Smith & Nephew, and DOES 1

27 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, were engaged in the business of manufacturing,28

2



1 designing, assembling, compounding, testing, inspecting, packaging, labeling, fabricating,2 constructing, analyzing, distributing, servicing, merchandising, recommending,3 advertising, promoting, marketing and selling a certain Smith & Nephew Synergy porous

4 high-offset size 15 femoral component, reference number 71306115, lot number

5 06MM05117 ("femoral component"); a certain Smith & Nephew chrome-cobalt modular

6 head sleeve +0 millimeters, reference number 74222200, lot number 9635 ("head7 sleeve"); and a certain Smith & Nephew chrome-cobalt Birmingham Hip Resurfacing8 System 56 millimeter acetabular cup, reference number 74120152, lot number 74429

9 ("MR"). The assembled combination of "femoral component, "head sleeve, and

10 "BHR" described in this paragraph will be referred to collectively hereinafter as "the

11 Device."

12 7. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, DOES 21 through 30, inclusive,

13 and each of them, were engaged in the business of distributing, supplying and selling the

14 Device and its component parts and constituents to hospitals, physicians and medical

15 suppliers, collectively referred to as "retail outlets, so that same could be resold to the

16 public by said retail outlets.

17 8. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants Smith & Nephew and DOES 31

18 through 40, inclusive, and each of them, were engaged in the business of selling the

19 Device to members of the general public through hospitals, doctors and medical suppliers,

20 which were to be used by the general public for the purpose of hip replacements.

21 9. Defendants Smith & Nephew and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each

22of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing,

23 marketing and distribution into the stream of commerce of the Device, including a duty to

24insure that the Device did not pose a significantly increased risk of adverse events.

2510. Defendants and each of them failed to exercise reasonable care in the design,

manufacture, testing, marketing and distribution into the stream of commerce of the26

Device. Defendants knew or should have known that the Device could fail early in27

patients, therefore giving rise to pain and suffering, debilitation, and the need for revision28



surgery to replace the device with the attendant risks of complications and death from

2 such further surgery, and therefore was not safe for use by Plaintiff.

3 11. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, knew, or in the

4 exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, that the said device was a

5 product of such a nature that if it was not properly manufactured, designed, assembled,

6 compounded, tested, inspected, packaged, labeled, fabricated, constructed, analyzed,

7distributed, serviced, merchandised, recommended, advertised, promoted, marketed and

8sold, for the use and purpose for which it was intended, it was likely to injure the person

or persons by whom it was used.9

12. The Defendants, and each of them, so negligently and carelessly10

manufactured, designed, assembled, compounded, tested or failed to test, inspected or

11failed to inspect, packaged, labeled, fabricated, constructed, analyzed, distributed,

12serviced, merchandised, recommended, advertised, promoted, marketed and sold the said

13 device, and its component parts and constituents, so that it was in a dangerous and

14 defective condition, and unsafe for the use and purpose for which it was intended when

15 used as recommended by the Defendants, and each of them.

16 13. The defective and dangerous character and condition of said Device, and that

17 it was unsafe for the use and purpose for which they were intended when used as

18 recommended by the Defendants, and each of them, was known to the Defendants, and

19 each of them, or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have been known

20 and discovered by Defendants, and each of them. Furthermore, the dangerous and

21 defective character and condition of the said device was not made known to the Plaintiffs

22 by the Defendants, or each of them.

23 14. On or about May 24, 2007, Plaintiff William Reilly was operated on by Dr.

24 James Fait at San Diego Medical Center Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 4647 Zion Avenue,

25 San Diego, CA 92120, and the Device was implanted into his left hip.

26 15. About October 2011, blood testing indicated there were high levels of cobalt

27 and chromium in PlaintiffWilliam Reilly's bloodstream, caused by the deterioration of

28



1 the Device. Such high levels of chromium and cobalt are indicative ofmetal-on-metal

2 disease, and are potentially carcinogenic and life-threatening.3 16. Plaintiff William Reilly's current surgeon, Dr. Adam Rosen of Scripps4 Clinic, 10666 North Torrey Pines Road, Suite 116, La Jolla, CA 92037, has suggested5 another surgery to remove the Device should be attempted as soon as possible.6 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of

7 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff will have to undergo surgery to prevent further

8 injury from the Device. Plaintiff has suffered pain and distressing mental anguish as a

9 result, and Plaintiff has also suffered general shock and traumatic neurosis as a result of

10 the said negligence and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff has

11 suffered, and for a long period of time to come will continue to suffer, pain and mental

12 anguish as a result of said injuries and as a result of his future surgery to remove the

13 Device.

14 18. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has been generally damaged in a

15 sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits ofthe Superior Court, Limited Jurisdiction.

16 19. In the treatment of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has incurred, is presently17 incurring, and will incur liability for the services of physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital18 care, medicine, x-rays, and other medical treatment, the true and exact amount thereof

19 being unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff prays leave to amend this Complaint20 accordingly when the true and exact cost thereof is ascertained by Plaintiff.

21 20. As a direct and proximate result of the said negligence and carelessness of

22 Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred, and will incur, loss of income,

23 wages, profits and commissions, a diminishment of earning potential, and other pecuniary24 losses, the full nature and extent of which are not yet known to Plaintiff, and leave is

25 requested to amend this Complaint to conform to proof at the time of trial.

26 21. Plaintiff has lost prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code

27 3291, the exact amount ofwhich Plaintiffprays leave to insert herein when finally28



1 ascertained.

2 22. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of

3 them, as hereinafter set forth.

4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

5 23. Plaintiff William Reilly incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this

6 Complaint as if fully set forth here and further alleges as follows:

7 24. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendants expressly warranted to

8 Plaintiff's physicians, by and through statements made by Defendants or their authorized

9 agents or sales representatives, orally and in publications, package inserts and other

10 written materials intended for physicians, medical patients and the general public, that the

11 aforementioned Device were safe, effective, fit and proper for its intended use.

12 25. In utilizing the aforementioned Device, Plaintiff and his physicians relied on

13 the skill, judgment, representations and foregoing express warranties ofDefendants.

14 26. Said warranties and representations were false in that the aforementioned

15 Device was not safe and was unfit for the uses for which it was intended.

16 27. As a result of the foregoing breach of express warranties by Defendants,

17 Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

18 28. Plaintiff and his physicians were and are unskilled in the research, design and

19 manufacture of the Device, and they reasonably relied entirely on the skill, judgment and

20 implied warranty ofDefendants in using the Device.

21 29. Within a reasonable time after discovery that said Device was defective and

22 unsafe for its intended use, Plaintiffnotified Defendants of the breach of said express

23 warranty in the manner and form prescribed by law.

24 30. As a proximate result of the breach of the said express warranty, Plaintiff has

25 sustained and will sustain the injuries and damages alleged herein.



286



1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES



4 33. Prior to the time the Device was being used by Plaintiff, the Defendants, and

5 each of them, impliedly waffanted to members of the general public, including Plaintiff,

6 that said Device was ofmerchantable quality and safe for the use for which they were

7 intended by the Defendants, namely, for the purpose of hip replacement, and other related

8 medical interventions.

9 34. Plaintiff relied on the skill and judgment of Defendants, and each of them, in

10 the selection, purchase and use of the Device.

11 35. Said Device was not safe for its intended use nor was it of merchantable

12 quality as warranted by Defendants, and each of them, in that it was defectively designed,13 thereby dangerously exposing the user recipient of the Device to serious injury.14 36. After Plaintiff received the injuries complained of herein as a result of said

15 defective condition of said Device, notice was given by Plaintiff to Defendants, in the

16 time and in the manner and in the form prescribed by law, of the breach of said implied17 warranty.

18 37. As a proximate result of the breach of the implied warranties of

19 merchantability and fitness, Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain the injuries and

20 damages alleged herein.

21 38. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays judgment against Defendants, and each of


23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY



26 40. Defendants, and each of them, manufactured, designed, assembled,

27 compounded, tested or failed to test, inspected or failed to inspect, packaged, labeled,

28



fabricated, constructed, analyzed, distributed, serviced, merchandised, recommended,

2 advertised, promoted, marketed and sold the Device and its component parts and

3 constituents, which was intended by the Defendants, and each of them, to be used for the

4 purpose ofhip replacement and other related medical necessities.

41. Defendants, and each of them, knew that said Device was to be purchased

6and used without inspection for defects by Plaintiff and the general public.

42. The Device was unsafe for its intended use by reason of defects in its7

8manufacture, design, testing, components and constituents, so that it would not safelyserve its purposes, but would instead expose the users of said product to serious injury

9because of the failure of Defendants, and each of them, to properly guard and protect the

10users of the Device from the defective design of said product.

ti43. Plaintiffwas not aware of said defects at any time prior to the injuries caused

12by said Device.

13 44. As a proximate result of said defects of said Device, Plaintiff sustained the

14 injuries and damages hereinabove set forth.



17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE REPRESENTATION UNDER

18 RESTATEMENT OF TORTS, 2ND, 4 402-B



21 47. At the aforementioned time when Defendants, and each of them,22 manufactured, designed, assembled, compounded, tested or failed to test, inspected or

23 failed to inspect, packaged, labeled, fabricated, constructed, analyzed, distributed,24 serviced, merchandised, recommended, advertised, promoted, marketed and sold said

25 Device, and its component parts and constituents, as hereinabove set forth, the

26 Defendants, and each of them, expressly and impliedly represented to members of the

27 general public, including Plaintiff William Reilly, that said Device and its component

28



1 J parts and constituents, was of merchantable quality and safe for the use for which it was

2 II intended.

3 II 48. Plaintiff relied upon said representations of Defendants, and each of them, in

4 the selection, purchase and use of said Device.

49. Said representations by Defendants, and each of them, were false and untrue,5

6in that said Device was not safe for its intended use, nor was it of merchantable quality as

7 represented by Defendants, and each of them, in that it had very dangerous properties and

8defects that caused injury and damage to the users of said product, including Plaintiff,

thereby threatening the health and life ofPlaintiff.9

50. As a proximate result of said false representations by Defendants, and each of10

them, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages hereinabove set forth.11

51. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffEll Reilly prays judgment against Defendants, and12

each of them, as hereinafter set forth.13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION LOSS OF CONSORTIUM14 52. Plaintiff Jill Reilly incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this15

Complaint as if set forth here and further alleges as follows:16 53. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of the defective Device and17

Defendants' wrongful conduct, Jill Reilly, Plaintiff William Reilly's husband, has been18 and will continue to be deprived of the consortium, society, comfort, protection, and19 service of William Reilly, thereby causing and continuing to cause Jill Reilly economic20

damages, grief, sorrow, mental anguish, emotional distress, and pain and suffering.21 54. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of22 I them, as hereinafter set forth.

23 CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES24 55. Plaintiff William Reilly incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs of this25 Complaint as if fully set forth here and further alleges as follows:

26 56. Defendants, and each of them, manufactured, designed, assembled,27 compounded, tested or failed to test, inspect or failed to inspect, packaged, labeled,28

9



1 fabricated, constructed, analyzed, distributed, serviced, merchandised, recommended,

2 advertised, promoted, marketed and sold said Device, and its component parts, a product3 which said Defendants knew to be dangerous and unsafe for the purpose for which they4 intended it to be used, namely, for hip replacement. At all times herein mentioned, prior to

5 and at the time the Defendants, and each of them, sold said Device to Plaintiff, and prior6 to the time that said product was used by Plaintiff, the Defendants, and each of them,

7 knew, as a result of clinical studies, tests, research, complaints of other users and other

8 information, that said Device, and its component parts, was defectively designed and

9 manufactured, that it had extremely dangerous properties and defects, in that it would

10 release chromium and cobalt ions into the user's bloodstream, and that it had other defects

11 which would cause serious injury and damage to users of said product, thereby threatening12 the life and health of the users; and at all of said times, the Defendants, and each of them,

13 knew that the defects of said Device had caused serious injury and damage to other users

14 of same.

15 57. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, despite the

16 actual knowledge described hereinabove, intentionally suppressed the aforementioned test

17 results, complaints, and other information to keep such knowledge from the general18 public, including Plaintiff, and failed to take any steps to warn Plaintiff, or other members

19 of the general public, of the dangers of using said Device.

20 58. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, had actual

21 knowledge of the facts hereinabove alleged demonstrating that serious injury to users of

22 said Device, including Plaintiff, would probably result. Defendants, and each of them,

23 nevertheless deliberately failed and refused to recall said device, or to take any other steps

24 whatsoever to prevent such injuries. Defendants, and each of them, misrepresented the

25 safety of said Device, and failed and refused to take any steps to prevent injury from said

26 Device in order to increase the profit of Defendants, and each of them, from the sale of

27 said Device.

2810



1 59. As a proximate result of the said defects and the acts and conduct of

2 Defendants, and each of them, as hereinabove alleged, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and

3 damages hereinabove set forth. The conduct and acts of Defendants, and each of them, as

4 hereinabove set forth, in allowing such an extremely dangerous product to be used by5 members of the general public, including Plaintiff, constitute fraud, malice and oppression6 toward Plaintiff, and a conscious disregard of the safety ofPlaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore

7 entitled to exemplary or punitive damages, which would serve to punish and make

8 examples of the Defendants, and each of them, as the court may deem just and proper.

9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10 THEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment for the following:11 1. Past and future medical and incidental expenses, according to proof;12 2. Past and future loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, according13 to proof;14 3. Past and future general damages, according to proof;15 4. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at

16 trial;

17 5. Prejudgment and post judgment interest;

18 6. Attorneys' fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5,

19 7. Costs to bring this action; and

20 8. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all claims so triable in this action.

Dated: September 4, 2012 HODES MILMAN LIEBECK, LLP

By:

ic0. Vanden Brinkrthevs for Plaintiffs

12


CON't RAC1

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

TORTh

1 •s.11L11.11 5. 0111111.N

FORFEITURE/PENAL II I BANKRUP CS fHER STATL7IF1S

Case 3:12-cv-02220-IEG-MDD Document 1-1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 1

15 44 (Rer 0q1 CIVIL COVER SHEETl4ie JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided

loeal rules acourt. This fornL approved by the Judicial Conference ol die United States in September 1974, is required for the use ofthe Clerk ofCourt for the purpose of initiating

the Civil docket sheet. (SEE INSIRUCY 'IONS ON NEXT l'..11;E Oh 111ff FOMI.;

1. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

WILLIAM REILLY and JILL REILLY SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

(n) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San DIege County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

fEX(L'I'7 1k (I.S. ILl1,V1IIE PLALVILWCASES ONLY)

NOTE: lN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE 11 IE LOCATION OFTIIE TRACT OF 1.AND INVOLVED.

V Attornt,tyS (En-rn Narnc, 4,1;Ires,, dna Telepha, Namiw, Attorneys (If Krum, "I 12CV2220 IEG MDDJe rey A. Mirman, Esq.; Jessica L. Vanden Brink, Esq. 949-640-8222

Hodes !Oilman Liebeck, LLP9210 Irvine Center Dr., Irvine, CA 92618

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION 1,,P0,,,, "1.-- a, (Ale flax hap III. CITIZENSIIIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place tm "X- in One &trine Plannflf))l:ar 0/1.:, r, in I loves Only) and One Bar for Defencluno

:I I U S. Government 0 3 Fedetal Question PTE DEE PTF DEE

Plaintiff (US. (/overnment Nor a Parly) Citizen anis State X 1 1 I incorporated or Principal Place 1 4 1 4

of Business In This State

1 2 U.S. Government X 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 1 2 73 2 Incorporated and' Principal Place 1 5 X 5

Defendant (Inshsafe l'un:enslup a/ Minh's in lion of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 1 3 El 3 Eoreittn Nation 7 6 1 6

Iv. NATURE OF SUIT' (Noce an "A rn (Au. Pay

73 110 Insinance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 7 625 Dree Related Seizure 71 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 CP 375 False Claims Act

1 120 Marine 1 310 Airplane X1 365 Personal Injury of Property 21 USC gal 0 423 Withdrawal CI 400 State Reapportionment1 130 Millei Act 7 315 Airplane Product Product Liabihty 1 690 Met 20 USC 157 0 410 Antitrust

1 140 Nenetiable Instrument Liability 71 36711ealth Cale., 3 430 Banks and Banking3 150 Recovery of Overpayment 1 320 Assault. Libel & Pharmaceutical 1 PROPERTY RIGHTS, 0 450 Commerce

A Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 7 820 Copyrights 0 460 Deportation1 151 Medicare Act 1 330 federal Employers' Product Liabihity 1 830 Patent 7 470 Racketeer Influenced and

3 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 1 368 Asbestos Personal 71 840 Trademark Corrupt OrganizationsStudent Loans 1 340 Marine Injuly Product 0 480 Consumer Credit

(Excl. Veterans) 1 545 Marine Product Liabilitv IABOR SOCIA1. SFXTRITY 1 490 Cable/Sat TV

1 153 Reciwery of ()comment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 71 710 Fair Labor Standards 1 861 HIA (139511) 0 850 Seem-tries/Commodities/

of Veteran's Benefits 73 350 Motor Vehicle 1 370 Oilier fraud Act 1 862 Black Lune 1923) Exchange0 ISO Stockholders' Suits 1 355 Motor Vehicle 1 371 Truth in Lending 71 720 Labor/Meru. Relations 7 863 DIWCID1WW (105(g, 1 890 Other Statutory Actions

1. 190 Other Contract Product Liabihtv 71 380 Other Personal 11 7.10 Railway Labor Act 1 864 SS1D Title XVI 1 891 Agricultural Acts

7 195 Contract Product Liability 71 360 Other Pei sonal Property Damage 1 751 Family and Medical 71 865 RS1 (405(g)) 1 893 Environmental Matters

1 196 Franchise Intim) 1 355 Property Dainaee Leave Act 1 895 Freedom of Inforntation

73 362 Personal litriny Product Liability 0 790 Other Labor Litigation Act

Med Malpractice .7 791 Empl. Ret. Inc 3 896 Arbitration

I REAL PROPERTY Civil. lwarrs PRISONE 11 PETIT! ONS Security Act FEDERAL. TAX SUITS 171 899 Administrative Procedoo:

1 2.10 Land Condemnation 71 410 Otbei Civil Rinks 1 510 Slotion to Vacaie 71 870 Taxes {U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of

71 720 Fornclosure 7 441 V01111.1.1 Selltel= or Defendant) Agency Decision

71 210 Rent Lease & Ejectment 1 412 Employment llabeas Corpus: 1 871 IRS- -Third Party 950 Constitutionality of

71 240 Torts to Land 1 113 llossikg .1 530 Genffal 26 CSC 7609 State Statutes

1 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 1 535 Death l'enalty IMMIGRATION

71 290 All Other Real Property 1 415 Amer. iv/Disabilities 1 540 Mandamus ..5.: Other El .162 Naturahration ApplicationEmployment 1 550 Civil Rights 1 16311abe:tr C-oipus

1 146 Amer. w"Dinabilities 1 555 Prison Condition Alien DetanieeOther 71 560 Civil Detainee (Prisoner Petition)

El 448 Education Conditions of 1 165 Other ImmigrationConfinement Actions

V. ORIGIN fllace an "N" In One liar Onfiz 'Fransferred from.:7.% 1 Oritnnal 71 2 Removed from :71 3 Remanded from i,I Reinstated or 71 5 71 6 Multidistrictanother district

Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened isi,,, crm Litination

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under isin en oil Ue. 1111110 fuk1 Mg ellejurisdictianal sulfides unless dirersifp:28 U.S.C. 1332

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Product liability involving, a defective metal on metal hipVII. REQUESTED IN El CHECK IE .1.1115 IS A CLASS ACLION DEMAND S CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint

COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: 7 Yes 73 No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)(See insfrucaynsf:

IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF AT-WR,X1t9' OF1 :C D,09/11/2012 _Z,-----1:,4/

RECEIPT It AMOUNT r !FP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-02220-IEG-MDD Document Page€¦ · Case 3:12-cv-02220-IEG-MDD Document 1 Filed 09/12/12 Page 5 of 12 1 the Device. Such high levels ofchromium and cobalt are indicative

Documents